That ship sailed when she decided to become a prominent spokesperson for Obama last fall.

If I were to give a fig about defending Oprah, I would argue that out of respect for Sarah Palin, she is not going to ask her on as she is a prominent supporter of Barack Obama. That makes more sense than arguing she wants her AFTER the election as a way to argue Oprah's actions are not partisan. OF COURSE they are partisan. Oprah is a partisan in this election.

Let me see if I have this straight:

Oprah endorsed Obama - even called him The One.  We all saw it.

Oprah won't book Palin, or any candidate,  until after the election.

Tom Brokaw mistakenly said Oprah had hosted Obama on her show, his point being that she favors Obama.

Liberal blogs take umbrage that Brokaw propogates the 'pointless right wing horse---' story that that Oprah favors Obama.

You truly could not make this stuff up. I have my usual general comment though, that Brokaw is like an idiot. He asks:

Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?

Huh?  What does that even mean? Biden does not even pretend to know, but babbles about Palin's family being off limits. Is that what that question was aimed at? If not, Biden sure tipped his hand as to what he considers non-elite.  

Sorry, Obama, but you and Oprah set this up and you got exactly what you asked for, and now, when its not going the way you want, you would like things to change. No dice.

I agree with Atrios. This isn't something new. Oprah didn't decide to start snubbing people and for Tom Brokaw to act like she is based on the facts is absurd. So why is it now a big story that Oprah has just REITERATED what she has said from the get go?

Judging from her RNC appearance and her stump speeches, Sarah Palin has shown to possess a good sense of comedic timing (which IMO is a very good asset to have, whether you're a politician, a blogger, a lawyer or a teacher).

It would be very smart to have Palin do an unannounced guest appearance on the show as herself -- with Tina Fey being called in (Lorne Michaels would do it!) to offer the show's one version of her.

Now, Obama is dispatching women to go out on the campaign trail and protect him from Sarah. I guess he even cut a deal with Hillary to go after Sarah.

Atrios and Media Matters both make one specific claim: that "Tom Brokaw incorrectly stated that Oprah hosted Obama after he announced his Presidential candidacy."

The claim is true; Obama did not appear on Winfrey's show after he announced his candidacy. As Media Matters put it:

Tom Brokaw falsely suggested that Winfrey has hosted Sen. Barack Obama on her show during Obama's campaign for president. However, the Post article Brokaw cited itself reported that Winfrey has not hosted Obama since he began his presidential campaign and that Winfrey said she decided when she endorsed Obama not to use her show "as a platform for any of the candidates.

The issue raised isn't whether Winfrey is partisan or what the effect of the endorsement has done to her ratings. It's that right-wing rhetoric consistently overshadows facts, or in this case one important fact -- that Winfrey did not use the platform of her show to host any of these candidates.

BTD further says that 'This outrage on behalf of Oprah is simply absurd." I don't see the outrage in either Atrios single-sentence post or Media Matter's mild write-up.

And for BTD to say, in reference to Brokaw's incorrect statement, that "Oprah did much more than that" when the initial proposition itself was wrong, uh, I'm sorry to say that seems to be the most disingenuous part of this entire dialogue.

"Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her -- Sarah Palin?"

Yes, I think they look very afraid to many people.  But I don't think they are elitist or afraid.  

Democratic success in this (and most) elections is strongly dependent on voter ignorance or susceptibility to being manipulated.  Why on earth would they want voters to be presented with both sides of a question?  So much better to tell these sheep what to think.  Why let Palin speak for herself? Why discuss what McCain says he is for when it is so much easier and effective to pretend he is Bush?

I really suspect Oprah would comply if Obama asked her to have Palin on her show if either thought his positions were stronger than hers. I have to suppose he has not asked her to do so.  I wonder why not?

Democratic candidates are not weak, stupid, or afraid.  Conversely a lot of careful, well-thought-out theory is in play in "community organizing" whether on the streets of Chicago or in a national election.